Comparative Outcomes of Transabdominal and Transperineal Approaches for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Fourteen-Year Retrospective Study
- PMID: 40322191
- PMCID: PMC12045752
- DOI: 10.14740/gr2015
Comparative Outcomes of Transabdominal and Transperineal Approaches for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Fourteen-Year Retrospective Study
Abstract
Background: The choice between transabdominal and transperineal approaches for full-thickness rectal prolapse repair remains controversial. This study compared the outcomes of these two approaches over a 14-year period in a real-world setting.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Thailand and included data from surgeries performed between January 2010 and December 2023. All patients who underwent surgical repair were included, except those with rectal prolapse secondary to colorectal cancer or those who did not receive surgical treatment. Surgical approaches were categorized into transperineal and transabdominal repairs. Outcomes (recurrence, morbidity, fecal incontinence, and constipation) were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting of propensity scores.
Results: A total of 58 patients were included, with 33 undergoing transperineal and 25 transabdominal repairs. Thirty-day postoperative complications and recurrence rates were comparable between the two approaches, with a nonsignificant trend favoring the transabdominal approach (30-day postoperative complication and recurrence risk ratios (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.67 (0.06, 7.65) and 0.62 (0.11, 3.53), respectively). Fecal incontinence and constipation rates were also comparable. However, among the 34 patients with at least a 1-year follow-up, the transabdominal approach showed a nonsignificant trend toward higher constipation and lower fecal incontinence (constipation and fecal incontinence risk ratios (95% CI): 2.24 (0.61, 8.19) and 0.50 (0.16, 1.60), respectively).
Conclusions: From our 14 years of experience, transperineal and transabdominal approaches for rectal prolapse repair have had comparable outcomes. The choice of approach should be based on patient conditions, surgeon expertise, and thorough discussion with all involved.
Keywords: Colorectal surgery; Comparative study; Propensity score; Rectal prolapse.
Copyright 2025, Keawmanee et al.
Conflict of interest statement
All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Which operative repair is associated with a higher likelihood of reoperation after rectal prolapse repair?Am Surg. 2014 Nov;80(11):1128-31. Am Surg. 2014. PMID: 25347504
-
Laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a single-institution retrospective study evaluating surgical outcome.Surg Endosc. 2005 Apr;19(4):514-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-9088-2. Epub 2005 Mar 11. Surg Endosc. 2005. PMID: 15759180
-
Does Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair at the Time of Rectopexy Impact Rectal Prolapse Recurrence Rates? A Retrospective Review of the Prospectively Collected Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement Database Pilot.Dis Colon Rectum. 2022 Dec 1;65(12):1522-1530. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002495. Epub 2022 Sep 8. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022. PMID: 36102871
-
Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse.World J Gastrointest Surg. 2025 Mar 27;17(3):102043. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i3.102043. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2025. PMID: 40162412 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Focus on abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: meta-analysis of literature.Tech Coloproctol. 2012 Feb;16(1):37-53. doi: 10.1007/s10151-011-0798-x. Epub 2011 Dec 15. Tech Coloproctol. 2012. PMID: 22170252 Review.
References
-
- Fleming FJ, Kim MJ, Gunzler D, Messing S, Monson JR, Speranza JR. It's the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(3):362–368. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02616.x. - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources